Children can't process sex, what does that mean?

Children can't process sex simply means they can't understand what the heck is going on. What is the adult doing to me? This makes it confusing and frightening. If you have groomed the child maybe they will seem receptive to your sexual advances, but believe me, they still don't know what's going on or why you are asking this of them, and it will haunt them even when they are adults.

There is such a thing as innocence which a child has a right to, and it is not the right of an
adult to take that innocence from them.

Xren wrote:

YouthRightsRadical wrote:Then perhaps I've misunderstood.

Vocabulary is teachable. The words associated with sex aren't something young children are incapable of learning. They're just words that adults are loathe to teach them for cultural reasons.

Even so. They are just words. Words that are objectively meaningless, but mean something to somebody else.

Penis. Anus. Ejaculation. Orgasm. Intercourse. Just fancy words for sticking the body part you piss out of into the body part you $#%^ out of and leaving it there until a thing that feels like pissing yourself happens (except it hurts more, and does a weird throbbing twitching thing.) And it offends the adults because they are stupid and uptight!

Right...?

(All the words in the world cannot make up for a lack of conceptualization. The Sapir Whorf hypothesis was debunked years ago.)

Perhaps this means demonstrating that I'm somehow deficient in your eyes, but I don't see how that's an inaccurate description. I mean, I'd probably add that these sensations are (or at least are intended to be) physically pleasurable, which is why people seek to do them, but that isn't exactly a game-breakingly alien concept.

Prairie gal wrote:Children can't process sex simply means they can't understand what the heck is going on. What is the adult doing to me? This makes it confusing and frightening. If you have groomed the child maybe they will seem receptive to your sexual advances, but believe me, they still don't know what's going on or why you are asking this of them, and it will haunt them even when they are adults.

So, what do adults know that children cannot ever possibly know? What is the key ability that makes sex perfectly fine and dandy when adults are doing it that children aren't able to understand no matter how well informed the child is?

I've tried to break this down before. It all seems to break down to knowledge base (about anatomy, mechanics, and the social situation), cognative development benchmarks including things like theory of mind (so you can know that other people know things you don't and vice versa) and predictive capability, and a power imballance, whether real or percieved.

What else is there that you see and I don't?

Prairie gal wrote:There is such a thing as innocence which a child has a right to, and it is not the right of an
adult to take that innocence from them.

I seem to find that word triggering. It's an interesting experience.

Anyway, "innocence" is just a nicer word for "ignorance", which I will never approve of enforcing on anyone. Ever.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:So, what do adults know that children cannot ever possibly know? What is the key ability that makes sex perfectly fine and dandy when adults are doing it that children aren't able to understand no matter how well informed the child is?

Promoting the idea that sex with children is fine should not be tolerated and certainly isn't allowed here on this forum. Keep in mind that the forum is law-abiding and anti sex with children, YouthRightsRadical.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

Xren wrote:

YouthRightsRadical wrote:Then perhaps I've misunderstood.

Vocabulary is teachable. The words associated with sex aren't something young children are incapable of learning. They're just words that adults are loathe to teach them for cultural reasons.

Even so. They are just words. Words that are objectively meaningless, but mean something to somebody else.

Penis. Anus. Ejaculation. Orgasm. Intercourse. Just fancy words for sticking the body part you piss out of into the body part you $#%^ out of and leaving it there until a thing that feels like pissing yourself happens (except it hurts more, and does a weird throbbing twitching thing.) And it offends the adults because they are stupid and uptight!

Right...?

(All the words in the world cannot make up for a lack of conceptualization. The Sapir Whorf hypothesis was debunked years ago.)

Perhaps this means demonstrating that I'm somehow deficient in your eyes, but I don't see how that's an inaccurate description. I mean, I'd probably add that these sensations are (or at least are intended to be) physically pleasurable, which is why people seek to do them, but that isn't exactly a game-breakingly alien concept.

Not implying or stating that you are deficient. At this point I don't know what to believe about sex and consent and validity...all I know is that I am unlike a "normal adult" and many people would reject me for that. It's hard to describe. For the purpose of this forum I cannot say things that sound pro-pedophilia, and for the record I am not, due to the structure of society. If society was different I might be, but currently I am not. And this forum is set up for people who want to be normal, who were nonconsensually made abnormal by neurochemistry and/or life experiences. Changing society is beyond the scope of acceptable topics for this forum, as far as I know.

In my eyes it isn't an inaccurate description either. I don't see how it could be physically "pleasurable" though. Sexual stimulation is so intense that it feels like being branded on the genitals. Cheeseburgers are pleasurable. Teepeeing your enemies' lawns is pleasurable. Shooting watermelons with a gun, listening to a good song that emotionally resonates, driving fast, the smell of dry erase marker or cigarettes or frankincense...those are pleasurable. Sex doesn't seem like it belongs in the same category.

Prairie gal wrote:Children can't process sex simply means they can't understand what the heck is going on. What is the adult doing to me? This makes it confusing and frightening. If you have groomed the child maybe they will seem receptive to your sexual advances, but believe me, they still don't know what's going on or why you are asking this of them, and it will haunt them even when they are adults.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:So, what do adults know that children cannot ever possibly know? What is the key ability that makes sex perfectly fine and dandy when adults are doing it that children aren't able to understand no matter how well informed the child is?

I've tried to break this down before. It all seems to break down to knowledge base (about anatomy, mechanics, and the social situation), cognative development benchmarks including things like theory of mind (so you can know that other people know things you don't and vice versa) and predictive capability, and a power imballance, whether real or percieved.

What else is there that you see and I don't?

Prairie gal wrote:There is such a thing as innocence which a child has a right to, and it is not the right of an
adult to take that innocence from them.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:I seem to find that word triggering. It's an interesting experience.

Anyway, "innocence" is just a nicer word for "ignorance", which I will never approve of enforcing on anyone. Ever.

I agree with YouthRightsRadical on this one. Imposing "innocence," I think, is a form of abuse and corruption. True innocence is a refusal to internalize toxic social constructs...which is inevitable in a society like this, because adults who have sex with children are indoctrinated too. Puberty hits, you can't escape it. They clamp down viciously. Or they make it so, structurally, you can't function. Pedophiles are "disease vectors" for the toxic social conditioning inflicted upon them, whether they know it or not.

I'm still not sure whether this is right or wrong, but FWIW, I have a visceral negative reaction to the concepts of "mature sexuality," "sexual experience" and "sex=fun." And I'm kinky. I've been kinky since age 13, maybe longer. I like blood and violence. It does alienate me from the rest of the BDSM community...they don't like implied pedo or suicide talk much.

P.S. Why is nobody mentioning the neurological differences between children and adults?

YouthRightsRadical wrote:Then perhaps I've misunderstood.

Vocabulary is teachable. The words associated with sex aren't something young children are incapable of learning. They're just words that adults are loathe to teach them for cultural reasons.

I study calculus. I can teach my 3 yr old niece the words of calculus. It is very incredibly highly unlikely she can conceptualize or understand those words. Therefore my niece would be unable to integrate the area under the parabola, for example.

Language is hierarchical. Human cognition is based on language. Concepts, understanding and awareness are built piece by piece, layer by layer. These then get connected and tied to such things as sensory input (what one sees, how ones body feels) and internal emotions (how one feels, what one wants).

In nature, sex is driven by instinct alone with a specific goals in mind. In the human race mother nature has provided a natural law in the form of puberty. This law, as far as I know, has nerver been demonstrated to have been violated once in nature. That a child can learn a word is not any argument that there can be any means to justify a law that evolution itself built into our species.

To my interpretation, nothing YRR has said in this thread could be construed as promoting sex with children. He's just calling into question platitudes and bad arguments. The anti-contact camp should welcome this, as it allows them to hone their arguments. I don't think we should be quick to resort to 'you're promoting sex with children and that's not allowed here' when that's not the case and is simply a proxy for a well-formulated counterargument.

-- Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:50 pm --

Incidentally, what are the neurological differences? I was masturbating from the age of nine, and perfectly capable of handling the dry orgasms it produced.

Masturbating yourself at nine, exploring your own body at nine is quite different than someone else doing it, no?

Only in senses other than the purely physiological. Just in case it was insufficiently apparent, I was addressing the claim that kids are somehow neurologically not up to handling the physical sensations. I'd humbly suggest that point is baseless.

ElKahn wrote:

YouthRightsRadical wrote:So, what do adults know that children cannot ever possibly know? What is the key ability that makes sex perfectly fine and dandy when adults are doing it that children aren't able to understand no matter how well informed the child is?

Promoting the idea that sex with children is fine should not be tolerated and certainly isn't allowed here on this forum. Keep in mind that the forum is law-abiding and anti sex with children, YouthRightsRadical.

It seems to me there is nothing more anti sex with children than a good answer to my question. My question would only be promoting the idea that sex with children is fine if the answer to my question turns out to be "nothing". Do you believe that the answer to my question is "nothing"?

Xren wrote:

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

Xren wrote:Even so. They are just words. Words that are objectively meaningless, but mean something to somebody else.

Penis. Anus. Ejaculation. Orgasm. Intercourse. Just fancy words for sticking the body part you piss out of into the body part you $#%^ out of and leaving it there until a thing that feels like pissing yourself happens (except it hurts more, and does a weird throbbing twitching thing.) And it offends the adults because they are stupid and uptight!

Right...?

(All the words in the world cannot make up for a lack of conceptualization. The Sapir Whorf hypothesis was debunked years ago.)

Perhaps this means demonstrating that I'm somehow deficient in your eyes, but I don't see how that's an inaccurate description. I mean, I'd probably add that these sensations are (or at least are intended to be) physically pleasurable, which is why people seek to do them, but that isn't exactly a game-breakingly alien concept.

Not implying or stating that you are deficient. At this point I don't know what to believe about sex and consent and validity...all I know is that I am unlike a "normal adult" and many people would reject me for that. It's hard to describe. For the purpose of this forum I cannot say things that sound pro-pedophilia, and for the record I am not, due to the structure of society. If society was different I might be, but currently I am not. And this forum is set up for people who want to be normal, who were nonconsensually made abnormal by neurochemistry and/or life experiences. Changing society is beyond the scope of acceptable topics for this forum, as far as I know.

While I oppose sex with children in this society, that doesn't mean I'm anti-pedophilia. Trying to extinguish an aspect of human variation that is unpopular due to social prejudice is GENOCIDE. Whether the means are mass killing or kinder, gentler means like forced sterilization or forced conversion, I find it an utterly unacceptable course of action. And not just because I'd happen to be one of those sent to the camps.

Xren wrote:In my eyes it isn't an inaccurate description either. I don't see how it could be physically "pleasurable" though. Sexual stimulation is so intense that it feels like being branded on the genitals. Cheeseburgers are pleasurable. Teepeeing your enemies' lawns is pleasurable. Shooting watermelons with a gun, listening to a good song that emotionally resonates, driving fast, the smell of dry erase marker or cigarettes or frankincense...those are pleasurable. Sex doesn't seem like it belongs in the same category.

That's why I added the caveot of "intended to be". Most people who have sex do so because they enjoy the sensation. If you don't enjoy the sensation, I can easily see why you'd want to avoid it and why you'd want to avoid inflicting it on other people.

I'm curious. Have you run across the idea that other people enjoy the physical sensations of sexual activity before this point?

Xren wrote:

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

Prairie gal wrote:There is such a thing as innocence which a child has a right to, and it is not the right of an
adult to take that innocence from them.

I seem to find that word triggering. It's an interesting experience.

Anyway, "innocence" is just a nicer word for "ignorance", which I will never approve of enforcing on anyone. Ever.

I agree with YouthRightsRadical on this one. Imposing "innocence," I think, is a form of abuse and corruption. True innocence is a refusal to internalize toxic social constructs...which is inevitable in a society like this, because adults who have sex with children are indoctrinated too. Puberty hits, you can't escape it. They clamp down viciously. Or they make it so, structurally, you can't function. Pedophiles are "disease vectors" for the toxic social conditioning inflicted upon them, whether they know it or not.

I don't understand your metaphore here. Perhaps it is something to do with our definitions, since there is some imprecision in your language which is a problem in and of itself.

Pedophiles are merely adults who are sexually attracted to children. Adults who have sex with children are called child molesters. These two categories aren't really related despite it perhaps seeming obvious that they would be. The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are not child molesters, the overwhelming majority of child molesters aren't pedophiles, and proportionally speaking nonpedophiles are more likely to molest children than pedophiles are.

So I ask, in your disease vector analogy, are you referring to the common misconception that pedophiles operate like vampires, molesting a child and causing that child to grow up to be attracted to children themselves? Because while there is some evidence that children who were molested are at greater risk of molesting children themselves, that has nothing to do with pedophilia.

Xren wrote:I'm still not sure whether this is right or wrong, but FWIW, I have a visceral negative reaction to the concepts of "mature sexuality," "sexual experience" and "sex=fun." And I'm kinky. I've been kinky since age 13, maybe longer. I like blood and violence. It does alienate me from the rest of the BDSM community...they don't like implied pedo or suicide talk much.

That is interesting. Our experience is very different, though I am sorry to hear about the alienation.

Xren wrote:P.S. Why is nobody mentioning the neurological differences between children and adults?

Presumably because the neurological differences are really just a proxy for the abilities we actually care about. They can be used to help identify when certain abilities are likely to manefest, but it's the abilities themselves that are important to any discussion of how an experience can be processed.

cumulusjames wrote:

YouthRightsRadical wrote:Then perhaps I've misunderstood.

Vocabulary is teachable. The words associated with sex aren't something young children are incapable of learning. They're just words that adults are loathe to teach them for cultural reasons.

I study calculus. I can teach my 3 yr old niece the words of calculus. It is very incredibly highly unlikely she can conceptualize or understand those words. Therefore my niece would be unable to integrate the area under the parabola, for example.

If she doesn't understand those words, in what sense have you thought her those words?

cumulusjames wrote:Language is hierarchical. Human cognition is based on language. Concepts, understanding and awareness are built piece by piece, layer by layer. These then get connected and tied to such things as sensory input (what one sees, how ones body feels) and internal emotions (how one feels, what one wants).

The basic sexual terminology are no more objectively difficult than those for explaining tummy aches or washing behind your ears. Our culture actively conspires to keep this terminology out of the hands of young people, but that actually seems to imply we think they probably could understand that terminology, otherwise there'd be no need to conceal it from them.

cumulusjames wrote:In nature, sex is driven by instinct alone with a specific goals in mind. In the human race mother nature has provided a natural law in the form of puberty. This law, as far as I know, has nerver been demonstrated to have been violated once in nature. That a child can learn a word is not any argument that there can be any means to justify a law that evolution itself built into our species.

HA! I'm sorry, but all this will of the Force stuff never ceases to amuse me.

Thomas Hobbes, one of the great english language philosophers famously described what humans are like when subject to natural law:

Thomas Hobbes wrote:In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Nature and evolution are not moral forces, and I get very tired of people treating them as though they are some sort of secular deity.

That said, we actually do observe sexual activities between mature adults and immature juveniles in other species. The closest surviving genetic relative to humanity, the bonobo, being the most famous example.

ctithe wrote:To my interpretation, nothing YRR has said in this thread could be construed as promoting sex with children. He's just calling into question platitudes and bad arguments. The anti-contact camp should welcome this, as it allows them to hone their arguments. I don't think we should be quick to resort to 'you're promoting sex with children and that's not allowed here' when that's not the case and is simply a proxy for a well-formulated counterargument.

Exactly so. I WANT to read a good argument from the anti-contact camp. I want to be convinced. If their position is indeed the true nature of the world, I want them to explain it so I can join them in knowing the truth. Why would anyone want to remain mired in ignorance?

You forget. I was a child having sex with men and it reked me. I do not deny that I enjoyed the biological mechanisms, but there was a psychological price to pay. And I am still paying it. I could not make those decisions, I got led in unhealthy directions and most of my life has been horrific as a result.

It is not just about the sex. Sex affects your selfhood.

Just don't ###$ kids that's all.